jmnemonic wrote: Mother Earth is going to fart us into doomsday.
pstarr wrote: There is are no more techno-efficiency gains to be had.
Carlhole wrote:I know it hurts but it's good for you. Groupthink is bad...very, very bad.
Ray Kurzweil, 2005 wrote:The 2010 Scenario. Computers arriving at the beginning of the next decade will become essentially invisible: woven into our clothing, embedded in our furniture and environment. They will tap into the worldwide mesh (what the World Wide Web will become once all of its linked devices become communicating Web servers, thereby forming vast supercomputers and memory banks) of high-speed communications and computational resources. We'll have very high-bandwidth, wireless communication to the Internet at all times. Displays will be built into our eyeglasses and contact lenses and images projected directly onto our retinas.
Sixstrings wrote:americandream wrote:The problem with doomerism and anti-doomerism is that both sets of proponents have seldom thought through the essential core characteristic of capitalism. They haven't contemplated its causes and effects (it's fundamentals), it's resilience and adaptability...
Well I've never doubted the power and resiliency of market forces. When I've brought it up from time to time, just even mentioning the word market caused some folks to jump on me like I'm a cornucopian.
You can't deny basic market forces, it's like denying gravity. Even if every last drop of oil runs out that doesn't mean capitalism stops -- even the ancient Greeks and Romans had basic capitalism.
Now that doesn't mean that the status quo is just fine; we don't really have a free market, we're drifting more toward a command economy. And things could be a lot more equitable -- adopting socialism wouldn't mean getting rid of capitalism.
But this core recognition of market forces, the idea that necessity is the mother of ivention and that the market drives solutions to problems as they arise, is what keeps me from ever being an uber doomer.
Fiddlerdave wrote:And 20% of the population that was working is now permanently unemployed.
* JIT delivery to supermarkets and big-box retailers is still humming
* Chain restaurants are still packed
* highways are packed
* gas is still $3/gallon nationwide average
keep it up doomers, PURE entertainment
mos6507 wrote:Fiddlerdave wrote:And 20% of the population that was working is now permanently unemployed.
But that's not peak oil doom.
Plantagenet wrote:Global oil production peaked in 2005-6. The rise in energy costs from 2005-8 and the spike in energy prices in late 2008 crashed the global economy. When the global economy crashed oil prices went down in 2009, but now that the economy is recovering oil prices are going back up. Eventually oil prices get high enough that they will inevitably crash the economy again so they will go down again...before going back up when the economy tries to get going again and oil shortages return.
This IS peak oil doom....and with every future boom and bust cycle the global economy just going to get worse and worse.
DoomersUnite wrote:Plantagenet wrote:Global oil production peaked in 2005-6. The rise in energy costs from 2005-8 and the spike in energy prices in late 2008 crashed the global economy. When the global economy crashed oil prices went down in 2009, but now that the economy is recovering oil prices are going back up. Eventually oil prices get high enough that they will inevitably crash the economy again so they will go down again...before going back up when the economy tries to get going again and oil shortages return.
This IS peak oil doom....and with every future boom and bust cycle the global economy just going to get worse and worse.
So peak oil caused the real estate bubble to deflate....followed by the corresponding crash...and now the corresponding recovery except....we don't have a real estate bubble operating in conjunction with it. So...without the corresponding real estate bubble....why would oil prices by themselves cause another crash?
Plantagenet wrote:Peak Oil will inevitably produce multiple cycles of high oil prices followed by recession. The 2008 spike in oil prices and the current "great recession" is just the first one.
mos6507 wrote:I'm surprised Planty didn't say Obama caused the crash, but to raise the whole "peak oil caused the credit crisis" meme again? Please...
Listen, this oil spike has something in common with 2008. You know what it is? It isn't geology. It's SPECULATION. Just like the 60-minutes piece that was put out there in the fall of 2008 which was grossly ignored by peakers, we're going through this again. Attempts to reign in speculators have largely failed. Money is rushing into commodities again and today's oil prices are colored (at least party) by speculator frenzy. Look at oil inventories. They aren't tight enough to justify prices at this level purely based on supply and demand. Open your eyes to the facts and you'll see it.
Oil should probably still be trading in the high 70s or low 80s range if not for speculation.
DoomersUnite wrote: Here is a snapshot of the same time period from the perspective of GDP....which isn't shrinking...and therefore isn't a recession.
DoomersUnite wrote:Interestingly, someone appears to be calling for "global recessions" when in fact no such recessions happened.
JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Economic growth in developing countries will expand at more than double the rate elsewhere but financial stability is still at risk, the International Monetary Fund said Tuesday in its latest assessment in the wake of the global recession.
The IMF raised its projections for overall global economic output to an increase of 4.4 percent in 2011, slightly higher than the 4.2 percent anticipated in the Washington-based institution's October report, but slower than the 5.0 percent achieved in 2010.
However, IMF Financial Counselor Jose Vinals cautioned that the risk of volatility remains because of the failure to push through reforms, and address fiscal and banking problems that led to the worst crisis since the Great Depression
Plantagenet wrote:DoomersUnite wrote: Here is a snapshot of the same time period from the perspective of GDP....which isn't shrinking...and therefore isn't a recession.
I think anyone who believes there was never a recession at any time between 1980 and 2000 might need a new theory.
eXpat wrote:DoomersUnite wrote:Interestingly, someone appears to be calling for "global recessions" when in fact no such recessions happened.
Well, the IMF for one is calling it "global recession"
DoomersUnite wrote: graph from.... the World Bank for a longer period of time. The only global contraction since 1960 was the 2008/2009 financial mess.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- ... =world+gdp
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests